You think talking about the necessity of guns is "civil" talk?And people like you are the reason proposed gun bans fail. Can't talk like a civil, rationalized person and actually listen to others concerns, just troll away and ignore whatever they say because you don't want to try.
Sure, that's what he did. That gun will never shoot anyone unless of course you think the video was to throw us all off and he plans on going on a shooting spree of his own with his left over gun.for pointing out he did nothing except violate the NFA and make people feel good?
ok
The voice of privilege speaks up again.Your post got me dizzy with all that spin! You valiant social justice warrior you.
Yes, that is part of the reason someone took issue with the numbers I posted. It included private and government guns. I included it because as we have seen in the US, government guns can be used to hurt civilians.
Discipline and training would probably help a lot, but again, I think mental health comes in to play. If you are suffering in Switzerland with mental health, you have far more avenues to take to get help.
I'm not sure I understand your question. The US used guns to defeat the British, and those guns were never taken away. We then had a constitution that explicitly gave the right of gun ownership to the people. So yes, as long as this country has been here guns have been here. I might not be understanding your question though.
Probably because there was only two school shootings in 2008.
And more people were probably killed by tornadoes or by drowning but that doesn't stop us from trying to make it zero people killed by them.There were more people killed in 2008 by guns than today. So why should there be stricter gun laws today, when less people are killed by guns than when it wasn't a priority for the Dems?
Cool story broThere were more people killed in 2008 by guns than today. So why should there be stricter gun laws today, when less people are killed by guns than when it wasn't a priority for the Dems?
And more people were probably killed by tornadoes or by drowning but that doesn't stop us from trying to make it zero people killed by them.
We make attempts at less death that are within reason, particularly so compared to the actual cost to society of whatever it is we're discussing at the time. Given guns cost to society when compared to other liberties that harm us, they are already adequately regulated. There are a few loose ends that we can tie up that help, but I'm not for losing more of my rights.
As the days go by, the issues in play are becoming clearer.
These districts fought the school-to-prison pipeline. Can Pittsburgh learn their lessons?
"Take Broward County, the Florida county that used to rank No. 1 at sending students to their state’s juvenile justice system.
The stats troubled Broward County leaders, and they responded with a bold solution: Lower arrests by not making arrests.
After examining juvenile data, a local task force compiled 12 misdemeanor offenses that would no longer be considered police matters. Criminal mischief and vandalism, for example.
The results were quickly positive.
In 2011-12, Broward County officers made 1,062 school-related arrests. That dropped to 392 in 2015-16, putting the rate of school-related arrests among the lowest in the state.
School district officials say the strategy allowed schools to respond more constructively to normal teenage behavior, without hurting police ability to respond to serious crime.
“We’re not compromising school safety. We’re really saving the lives of kids,” said Michaelle Valbrun-Pope, executive director of Student Support Initiatives for Broward County Public Schools."
Progressive solutions for the win. /s
Common sense completely discarded in still more misguided feel-good bullshit that in this case got a whole bunch of people killed and injured. And as is the norm, progressives seek to push the blame off on other people and entities.
Gun-owners: Let's keep emotions out of this. While this was a tragedy, we can't let those heightened emotions push us into threatening this foundational right.
Also gun-owners: I'd rather die trying to kill cops than let you touch the physical embodiment of my insecurity!
The question was pretty clear, I thought. Curious whether you have statistics for the historical number of guns in private ownership in the US. Did gun ownership only become commonplace, as has been argued (possibly incorrectly) after the civil war?
You referred to the increase in spree-killings and how that related to the number of guns. One obvious question then is has the number of guns increased?
(Edit - occurs to me that such spree-killings and massacres are not new, it's just that historically the victims were likely to be American indians.)
No new law needed, its simply a reclassification. Easy peasy.
The difference between drunk driving, illegal immigration and gun control, of course, is that you don't have a bunch of gun nuts threatening to kill people to keep the laws as is nor do you have a powerful lobby campaigning against politicians.
Do you think people would quietly and passively just accept it if we restricted other constitutional rights? Say if we repealed the 1A then outlawed Islam, how would that go over? Or repealed the 13th and 14th and formalized the exploitative relationship employers have with illegal aliens and just declare them slaves?
I agree, what’s the difference between the right to own a gun as property and the right to own a human being as property? It’s all just property, so the reaction to the two should be the same.
This is about sentence structure. Do you want to explain why it's not correct instead of throwing insults? There is a big different between these also.It's a terrible analogy; you are a fucking moron.
No new law needed, its simply a reclassification. Easy peasy.
Good job completely missing the point. Do you think people would just accept without question the removal or significant restriction of one of their major constitutional rights? Pick any of them, it doesn’t need to be 2A.
It’s amazing how you keep doggedly repeating this nonsense given how it’s led to basically the entire forum laughing at you.
In case it bears repeating, there is no logical or moral reason to regulate all things in similar ways or to a similar extent. I can’t believe that even needs to be explained.
Without question? No, that’s a straw man. Would they do it? Sure. Just look at the 4th amendment.
If most of overly left anti-2A AT P&N (generally speaking) is laughing at me in regards to my comments on guns, then I'm very likely saying things that are good for America. Good cheerleading attempt, though.
Is it ok to rape the 2A because the 4A has been abused?
Is it ok to rape the 2A because the 4A has been abused?
Fskimospy certainly seems pretty blasé about the NSA spying and abuses if not complete ignoring of the 4th Amendment. I guess to feel safe from a relatively remote chance of dying in a mass shooting that he'd be OK with abridging rights if the majority agreed with it and that he'd be part of that majority. I'd rather hoped a progressive thinker like him would be on the side of the Civil Rights marchers, and the people getting put into Japanese internment camps, and the like. I personally think that rights mean we sometimes need to accept some level of small amount of danger from others we'd rather avoid, for example I certainly wish everyone would get vaccinated but I'm not willing to send government in with guns to force compliance for shots either. Seems like he'd be fine sending in government troops to enforce his desired gun bans.